Since your site doesn’t include F1 in the title, I think you’d be pretty safe even if you found a way to make a massive income on your site.

tis true alianora, although some of our shows do (f1 digest etc), as do their respective logos.

@ Oliver white : Please can i have your email ? I have a project and i’d like to know if you can help me .

Thank you

Since your site doesn’t include F1 in the title, I think you’d be pretty safe even if you found a way to make a massive income on your site.

it already has them, i think they’re known as the law. the problem is effectivly policing them (esp. across borders).

As you say, law, but which one? And as we both say, it’s almost impossible to police (effectively). How many blogs are started each day…? Unlike printed media which costs an arm and a leg to set up, therefore more likely to follow law/leg, it’s easier to police because it’s more noticeable and easier to trace. It is easy to trace on the ‘net, but there are so many obstacles just to get to one individual… And as the UK government and police often point out, they’re not too hot on anything vaguely electronic.

The professional side of me says blogging needs more tighter guidelines and controls

it already has them, i think they’re known as the law. the problem is effectivly policing them (esp. across borders).

so our business plan to lose money hand over fist, month in, month out, actually has some merit?

We must have the same business advisors!

Blogging, to an extent, operates under different rules

I think part of the problem of bloggers is that some want to get noticed and heard, but then their cover is blown so to speak. Once this happens, they have to play by the rules (especially if the rules are governed by anyone like Ecclestone).

But flying under the radar allows more flexibilty with what you say and do. And that attitude is almost a problem with blogging. And I say almost because some bloggers out there write really great content (not necessarily F1-related) that makes people think and talk about, but if it were an international publication (such as F1R) or corporate blog, that content would never see the light of day.

The professional side of me says blogging needs more tighter guidelines and controls (and before anyone mentions it, I know I’m not always saintly). The pragmatic side says that would be almost impossible to enforce and the romantic side says blogging is just about fine the way it is. I guess it comes down to the individual blogger in the end.

turning a profit from their F1 coverage

Well, I’m sure some of the blog owners that involve themselves in conversations like these do turn a profit. Although not being ltd companies, and the profit being only enough to keep them in wine for the month, I guess they can relax for now.

Blogging, to an extent, operates under different rules – but I imagine that if the likes of F1fanatic.co.uk were turning a profit from their F1 coverage, they would be getting a letter…

so our business plan to lose money hand over fist, month in, month out, actually has some merit?

fantastic!

Yes – Formula 1, F1 and Formula One are trademarks which Haymarket acknowledge and use under licence. If you’re a multinational publishing company then you have to respect the intellectual property of the people you do business with.

Blogging, to an extent, operates under different rules – but I imagine that if the likes of F1fanatic.co.uk were turning a profit from their F1 coverage, they would be getting a letter…

SC

It has long been my feeling that any magazine that doesn’t have a robust web presence is unable to be competitive in today’s marketplace and are destined for the dust bin.

@donwatters: Do you think Motor Sport Magazine’s web presence is robust enough to ensure its survival? And of course, the same question regarding F1 Racing’s website.

i heard a while back that f1weekly.com were asked to change their domain to grandprixweekly.com.

f1weekly.com redirects to grandprixweekly.com, and a whois search suggests both domains are still owned by the same person/company. That doesn’t mean they weren’t asked though. Their site logo is still “F1Weekly”, but f1 redirects to gp, rather than the other way round.

i wonder if you’re the only one?

Hmmm, that’s got me thinking. I’ll expand later when I get home. Until then guys, feel free to discuss away…

you said in part one:

And you know what means, don’t you? Renault are interacting with their customers.

…

Now I admit that Renault fell over themselves this year, but they crashed to the ground trying to further their already admirable attempts at interaction.

it may be a coincidence that the renault site collapsed under it’s own weight at the very point bpl exited the team, or it may not, but i think it’s worth remembering that said person left said blog in order to work for f1racing

now… what were you saying on your personal site the other day about missing blogging? i wonder if you’re the only one?

I’m wondering if I should be worried, but I’m guessing if there was anything to be worried about, F1Fanatic.co.uk would have already realised it.

i heard a while back that f1weekly.com were asked to change their domain to grandprixweekly.com. no idea if that’s true or if they just fancied a change?

I am genuinely shocked that you can’t publish a magazine about F1 and use F1 in the name without a license.

I know, crazy isn’t it! I was a little surprised by that statement from Stuart. I’m wondering if I should be worried, but I’m guessing if there was anything to be worried about, F1Fanatic.co.uk would have already realised it. I hope.

I’ve always thought that the difference between a net-savvy publication and a publication with a website is whether they view the website as part of the product, or merely an advertising tool for the product.

@Kris: You sir have an excellent way with words. This sentence highlights the primary differences exactly. In this day and age of the Internet, which is only going to expand further in the next few years (after that the crystal ball becomes a bit hazy), I’m surprised more publications aren’t trying to add a website to their product, rather than view it as an exclusively promotional tool.

A good example may be the BBC Top Gear blogs, the number of which I don’t know, but there’s more than two, I’m certain. They advertise as well add ‘net-only content to the already existing magazine and show. The content on one of their blogs may not be great, but it’s reasonably popular, therefore appealing to someone.

A good quality book/magazine etc not only gives you a physical copy to read and keep, but can often invest more in rigorous editing and paying talented writers to entertain, inform and provoke thought.

The blogosphere is full of talented writers willing to do similar for free, but no one person (or small group of people) can give us quite as much good quality content in one place, making the value of printed media in the collection, quality control and professionalism of their content.

I’ve always thought that the difference between a net-savvy publication and a publication with a website is whether they view the website as part of the product, or merely an advertising tool for the product. I think this 2nd part of the article highlights this difference very well indeed.

there are compelling reasons why F1 Racing’s website is the way it is, and those reasons relate to the terms of our licence with FOM to use the F1 name.

I know by now nothing Bernie does should surprise me but I am genuinely shocked that you can’t publish a magazine about F1 and use F1 in the name without a license. The fact that the license is then restrictive doesn’t surprise me.

Obviously, though, you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

Of course, nobody should be expected to. I think I’m a part of the majority when it comes to F1.com, but for publications such as F1 Racing, I’m not so sure. Thanks for passing this on though, muchly appreciated.

there are compelling reasons why F1 Racing’s website is the way it is, and those reasons relate to the terms of our licence with FOM to use the F1 name.

Ah, that’s interesting. So FOM place restrictions on what can and can’t be done when the F1 name is involved?

anyone who’d actually been to Spa could tell you that the prospective shortcut went across a valley!

Hehe, maybe the Spa organisers visited Valencia and decided the future was in bridges!

Many thanks for a thorough and passionately argued piece. I’ll send a link to ‘The Powers That Be’ (thanks to the magic of Google Alerts they may have found you already!).

When you produce a product – any product – it pays to listen to the views of the people who buy it, or who might buy it. Obviously, though, you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

Without wishing to bore with all the details, there are compelling reasons why F1 Racing’s website is the way it is, and those reasons relate to the terms of our licence with FOM to use the F1 name.

As to Autosport – well, unlike the majority of F1 news sites, they send correspondents to all the races, and that has to be paid for somehow, either through ads or subscriptions. Steven makes a valid point about the internet being full of useful motor racing info. However, there’s also plenty of disinformation, often propagated by well-meaning types who just like to have something to talk about. A case in point here is the recent nonsense about Spa being shortened. This caused many people to get their knickers in a twist last week – anyone who’d actually been to Spa could tell you that the prospective shortcut went across a valley!

SC

Then they decided to start charging for access to a lot of their content and now I rarely visit it at all.

Autosport is a whole other ball-game, in my mind. Honestly, they make me livid. A post about Autosport.com would just be a string of expletives, but maybe one day I’ll be able to compose myself for long enough to put something half-decent out.

Agreed with Roebuck (I quietly thought that it was his influence on the publication that helped their online presence, but I couldn’t find anything the substantiate that), and I agree with Haymarket needing to change their attitude to online content.

I find it easier to talk about websites than printed media, hence why I didn’t suggest as much in this post as I did yesterday with F1.com. But I do believe that F1 Racing need a proper online presence if they are to capitalise their potential market. And I do believe that Autosport needs a complete and thorough overhaul.

F1 Racing are owned by Haymarket who also own Autosport. The Autosport site used to be my home page and a site I visited several times a day. Then they decided to start charging for access to a lot of their content and now I rarely visit it at all. The internet is full of interesting motor racing info. More than I could ever have time to read so why would I pay for the admittedly excellent content. I also grudge paying because I have bought the magazine every week for more years than I care to remember. If I had a subscription I would get free access but because it suits me to buy it in the shops they want me to pay. I don’t think so. Like the FIA Haymarket need to change their approach to their online presence.

I would have linked to it, but the Red Bulletin F1 site isn’t working. Hmmm…

the only reason i bring this up is because the paddock magazine is the perfect example of how printed media can flourish in this dual offline / online world (see their pdf uploads), plus it’s bernie sanctioned.